“Do you ever wonder what spins through a judge’s head while lawyers and witnesses drone on endlessly for days and weeks at trial?

In the case of U.S. District Judge James B. Zagel, who is scheduled to preside over the sweeping corruption trial of former Gov. Rod Blagojevich in a little more than two weeks, there’s a good chance those thoughts sometimes drift to grandly larcenous fantasies.

How else to explain “Money to Burn,” the well-received 2002 novel penned by Zagel about a federal judge who masterminds an audacious heist at the super-secure Federal Reserve Bank in Chicago? (Spoiler alert: The judge gets away with millions of dollars.)

Zagel may have an active imagination, but his broad list of admirers in Chicago’s legal community view that as just another example of why he is regarded as one of the smartest and most unflappable jurists at the federal courthouse.
“He is definitely one of those people who can do the job well with half of his attention,” veteran lawyer Joel Bertocchi said of Zagel, who has had parts in two Hollywood movies and whose broad interests range from jazz to target shooting with court security officers.

At 69, and with more than two decades on the federal bench, Zagel boasts a resume to qualify him as one of the most interesting men in Chicago. He helped prosecute mass murderer Richard Speck, twice held state Cabinet posts and was once married to TV investigative reporter Pam Zekman.

As a jurist, he also moonlights on the secretive Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court that decides whether to issue warrants for electronic eavesdropping on terrorism suspects.

In 1965, after graduating from the University of Chicago and Harvard Law School, Zagel joined the Cook County state’s attorney’s office, where he helped gain the conviction of Speck, the notorious killer of eight student nurses on the city’s Southeast Side.

From 1970 to 1977, Zagel ran the criminal division of the Illinois attorney general’s office. One of his assistants was Jayne Carr, who would later marry Illinois Gov. Jim Thompson. As a colleague, Jayne Thompson said, Zagel was hard-driving, meticulous with the law and possessed of an “encyclopedic memory.”

“He can sit down and write a legal pleading and fill in the citations, including the page numbers, without bringing out a book,” she recalled.

Zagel eventually went to work in Thompson’s administration, first as director of the Department of Revenue and then as head of what was then known as the Department of Law Enforcement.”

“Zagel was appointed to the federal bench in 1987 by President Ronald Reagan, and while his law enforcement background has given him a reputation for leaning toward the government’s view, he is widely viewed by members of the defense bar as predictable and fair.”

“Halprin, who represented mob boss Joey “the Clown” Lombardo, said Zagel did a good job managing a case with colorful lawyers in a circuslike atmosphere — a climate likely to be repeated in the Blagojevich case, which features a star defendant and legal team with flairs for the dramatic.”

“In 2008, Zagel was appointed by Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts to a seven-year term on the intelligence court.”

“The judge, said Bertocchi, “will want the result of this trial to speak well of the legal system.””

Little by little, people are opening their eyes to the reality of Barack Obama who has no regard for the US Constitution, the American people and the concept of separation of powers. Obama insults the US Supreme Court and Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito shook his head no, and mouthed “not true.”

“Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito shooked his head no, and mouthed “not true,” while President Obama criticized the Supreme Court for their recent decision permitting lobbyists and corporations to exert more influence on elections. This is highly inappropriate of a Supreme Court justice – they don’t even clap at the State of the Union, they’re supposed to be so impartial.”

Maybe the Supreme Court will look upon Obama’s eligibilty with more clarity now.

“Certainly all those who have framed written constitutions contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and consequently the theory of every such government must be, that an act of the legislature, repugnant to the constitution, is void.”

“So if a law be in opposition to the constitution; if both the law and the constitution apply to a particular case, so that the court must either decide that case conformably to the law, disregarding the constitution; or conformably to the constitution, disregarding the law; the court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case. This is of the very essence of judicial duty.

If then the courts are to regard the constitution; and the constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the legislature; the constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply.” …Chief Justice Marshall, “Marbury V Madison”

I have been in contact with lead plaintiff Charles Kerchner and attorney Mario Apuzzo since the inception of their lawsuit against Obama and Congress. The lawsuit is still alive and they are actively engaged in raising public awareness about the lawsuit and eligibility issues. One of their efforts has been to advertise in the Washington Times. Advertising and court cases require much money. Charles Kerchner has asked for my assistance. The Citizen Wells blog has a new page devoted to the Kerchner V Obama lawsuit and there is a link on that page and blog front page for donations to the cause.

Why is this lawsuit and other lawsuits important, aside from the obvious objection of removing an illegal usurper from office and saving this country?

By mid 2008, two things were abundantly clear:
1. There was enough evidence against Obama to stop his campaign for the presidency and the mainstream media was in bed with him.

There was no legitimate evidence that Obama was eligible and much compelling evidence that Obama was not a natural born citizen.

2. A Chicken V Egg scenario was emerging due to the Orwellian public perception crafting of the Obama camp and mainstream media. The court cases must emerge and move forward.

The US Constitution must be upheld.

The US Citizens must know the truth.

A constitutional crisis had to be avoided by preventing an illegal usurper from taking the presidency.

The merits of eligibility lawsuits will not be discussed here. That exercise has it’s place in the classrooms, court rooms and forums of the nation. No one desires to diminish the protocols and thought processes. However, it is clear from reading the opinion of Chief Justice Marshall, in “Marbury V Madison” that he adheres to the intent of the founding fathers to follow the US Constitution as the supreme law of the land, trumping other legislation and procedures. It is also clear that judges and state officials have forgotten or ignored their solemn oaths to uphold the US Constitution. Judges appear to be more concerned about subtle nuances, protocol, and yes, politics, than fulfilling their constitutional roles.

“Why does a judge swear to discharge his duties agreeably to the constitution of the United States, if that constitution forms no rule for his government? if it is closed upon him, and cannot be inspected by him?

If such be the real state of things, this is worse than solemn mockery. To prescribe, or to take this oath, becomes equally a crime.”…ChiefJustice Marshall, “Marbury V Madison”

So even though the issue of Barack Obama’s eligibility is governed by the US Constitution and subsequent Admendments, judges and state officials have chosen to ignore their sacred duties and leave the American people devoid of the crucial protection of checks and balances and the protection of the supreme law of the land.

This has transformed the many eligibility lawsuits into a watershed role probably not envisioned by the founding fathers. We now have the lawsuits proving a point, critical to the survival of this nation, in the court of public information and common sense. Before the appearance of the multitude of lawsuits, the mainstream media in cahoots with the Obama camp, controlled public perceptions of Obama’s records and eligibility as well as legal definitions such as natural born citizen. Public awareness of Obama’s eligibility is still to a large extent governed by these Orwellian attempts. The straw that broke the camel’s back, imprisoned Al Capone and ultimately will be the Achilles heel of Obama, is a detail. In Capone’s case he was indicted on tax evasion charges. In Obama’s case it is the fact that he has spent so many resources to avoid presenting a legitimate birth certificate and other records. This has been the blessing of the court cases. Despite the best attempts to pass the buck, play party politics and ignore constitutional responsibility, the truth about Barack Obama’s eligibility is emerging.
So why should you support an eligibility lawsuit? First and foremost we must demand that the US Constitution be adhered to as the supreme law of the land. Secondly, and what will ultimately indict Obama in the hearts and souls of the American public…

Why?

Barack Obama has employed a legion of private and government attorneys to prevent revealing his country of birth. Innocent and eligible persons seeking the office of president do not do that.
Support the Kerchner V Obama lawsuit and make certain you inform as many people as possible, Ask the simple question above.

On January 19, 2009 I posted the following article regarding the constitutional requirements to be sworn in as President of the United states, POTUS. There is much confusion about this among citizens, congressmen and most scarily, judges. The key phrase below is:

This comes direct from the 20th Amendment to the US Constitution.
“or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify,
then the Vice President elect shall act as President until
a President shall have qualified;”

Here is the complete article. Read it carefully.

US Supreme Court
Chief Justice

John Roberts

and

President Elect

Barack Obama

According to the US Constitution, the supreme law of the
land, Barack Obama will not be President of the United
States at 12:00 noon on January 20, 2009. No Chief
Justice administering the oath of office, no oath sworn
by a “president elect” makes one president. There are 3
mandatory requirements to achieve a legal inauguration.

A qualified president elect.

Sufficient votes by the Electoral College.

Certification and count of Electoral College votes by
Congress.

At noon on January 20, 2009, Joe Biden will be president
until a president shall be deemed qualified. This comes
direct from the 20th Amendment to the US Constitution.
“or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify,
then the Vice President elect shall act as President until
a President shall have qualified;”

Further reading of the 20th Amendment reveals that Congress
may also determine if the vice-president is qualified. This
is part of the scenario of a constitutional crisis that
Philip J Berg and others have warned of. The language of
the 25th amendment includes options that may further heighten
the crisis level.

Amendment XX

Section 1. The terms of the President and Vice President shall
end at noon on the 20th day of January, and the terms of Senators
and Representatives at noon on the 3d day of January,
of the years in which such terms would have ended if this article
had not been ratified; and the terms of their successors shall
then begin.

Section 2. The Congress shall assemble at least once in every
year, and such meeting shall begin at noon on the 3d day of
January, unless they shall by law appoint a different day.

Section 3. If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of
the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice
President elect shall become President. If a President shall not
have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his
term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then
the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President
shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the
case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect
shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President,
or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and
such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice
President shall have qualified.

Amendment XXV

Section 1. In case of the removal of the President from office or
of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become
President.

Section 2. Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice
President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall
take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of
Congress.

Section 3. Whenever the President transmits to the President pro
tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of
Representatives his written declaration that he is unable to
discharge the powers and duties of his office, and until he
transmits to them a written declaration to the contrary, such
powers and duties shall be discharged by the Vice President as
Acting President.

Section 4. Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either
the principal officers of the executive departments or of such
other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the
President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House
of Representatives their written declaration that the President is
unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice
President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the
office as Acting President.

Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro
tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of
Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists,
he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the
Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of
the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by
law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore
of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their
written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the
powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide
the issue, assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose if
not in session. If the Congress, within twenty-one days after
receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not
in session, within twenty-one days after Congress is required to
assemble, determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the
President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his
office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as
Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers
and duties of his office.

The REAL case will soon be going to the higher courts on appeal, and then to Washington DC ultimately to the U.S. Supreme Court. And the case the higher courts will hear on the merits will not be the imaginary straw-man version the case that Judge Simandle presented in his Opinion this week. The REAL case is about a core, basic, black-letter written, verbatim clause in the U.S. Constitution in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, as to who is eligible to be the President and Commander-in-Chief of the military per our founders and framers of the Constitution. Our Constitution is the guarantor of our Liberty! We cannot let any part of it be ignored by a Usurper. Ultimately the U.S. Supreme Court will have to decide this historic Article II case based on its merits, or our Constitutional Republic is history. And said history and “We the People” will record well and ultimately hold directly accountable those who are actively directly involved and also the enablers who are attempting to destroy our Constitution and Republic and participating in the cover-up. The facts and truth can only be sealed and hidden so long. Sooner or later the Obama fraud and cover-up will all be exposed. The truth will be told in a court of law and Obama and his enablers will be judged and held accountable for what they have done.

“A court cannot refuse to hear a case on the merits merely because it prefers not to due to grave social or political ramifications. As we have seen, the Court’s opinion dismissing the Kerchner complaint/petition did not address the real Kerchner case but rather looked for a way to dismiss the case without having to reach the merits of the question of whether Obama is an Article II “natural born Citizen.” It is my hope that the public will take the time to read the Kerchner complaint/petition and the legal briefs that I filed supporting and opposing the defendants’ motion to dismiss so that it can learn first hand what the Obama eligibility case is really about and draw an intelligent and informed decision on whether Obama is constitutionally qualified to be President and Commander in Chief of the Military. We are now working on filing our appeal to the Third Circuit Court of Appeal in Philadelphia which court we hope will decide our case dispassionately.”

I just want to remind you that MommaE Radio Rebels is on tonight! MARIO APUZZO AND CHARLES KERCHNER WILL BE THE GUESTS TONIGHT! MARIO AND CHARLES WILL BE TALKING ABOUT THEIR CASE AND ARE LOOKING FORWARD TO ANSWERING QUESTIONS FROM THE CALLERS! It will be open lines for call ins with any questions you have as well as comments!! It should be a hot, rocking and interesting show!

PLEASE POST THIS ON YOUR BLOGS OR WEB SITES AND ANY OTHER BLOGS OR WEB SITES THAT YOU ARE CONNECTED WITH AND SEND TO EVERYONE IN YOUR ADDRESS BOOK.

I look forward to seeing you all there! Link, time and call in number for the show is below.

A recent article by attorney Mario Apuzzo and information on Kerchner V Obama
“Why Should a Reputable Attorney Pursue the Obama Eligibility Issue?

I have been asked by one pro-Obama commentator on my blog who calls himself “kris” why a reputable attorney would pursue eligibility litigation against our putative President, Barack Obama.

In his argument, the commentator makes several correct statements. He is correct in stating that “Wong Kim Ark, while providing an expansive and controversial definition of a Fourteenth Amendment ‘citizen of the United States,’ simply does not and cannot retroactively change the Founders’ definition of a ‘natural born Citizen.'”

He is also correct in stating that the Founders never defined in the Constitution what a “natural born Citizen” is. What the commentator does not state is that the Founders believed in a Creator, who to provide order and justice, gave society natural law. That natural law manifested itself in the minds and hearts of men. What society was, who its members were, and what the ends of society were to be were all revealed through that natural law. Hence, there was no reason or motivation for them to write down what a “Citizen” or “natural born Citizen” was. Given the task of creating a new society after having won a revolution, for them it was intuitive that a “citizen” was a member of the new society and the children of the first citizens would in the future be the society’s “natural born citizens.” They also provided for others to join the new society in the future through naturalization and the children of those so joining the society would also be “natural born citizens.””

Article II, Sec. 1, cl. 5 of the Constitution provides in pertinent part: “No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President. . .” In this clause and in Articles I, III, and IV, the Founding Fathers distinguished between “Citizen” and “natural born Citizen.” Per the Founders, while Senators and Representatives can be just “citizens,” the President must be a “natural born Citizen.” Through this clause, the Founders sought to guarantee that the ideals for which they fought would be faithfully preserved for future generations of Americans. The Founders wanted to assure that the Office of President and Commander in Chief of the Military, a non-collegial and unique and powerful civil and military position, was free of all foreign influence and that its holder has sole and absolute allegiance, loyalty, and attachment to the U.S. The “natural born Citizen” clause was the best way for them to assure this.

That the “natural born Citizen” clause is based on undivided allegiance and loyalty can be seen from how the Founders distinguished between “citizen” and “natural born Citizen.” This distinction is based on the law of nations which became part of our national common law. According to that law as explained by E. Vattel in his, The Law of Nations (1758), a “citizen” is a member of the civil society. To become a “citizen” is to enter into society as a member thereof. On the other hand, a native or indigenes or “natural born Citizen” is a child born in the country of two citizen parents who have already entered into and become members of the society. Vattel also tells us that it is the “natural born Citizen” who will best preserve and perpetuate the society. This definition of the two distinct terms has been adopted by many United States Supreme Court decisions. (The Venus, 12 U.S. 253 (1814) and Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874) to cite just two.) With the presidential qualification question never being involved, neither the 14th Amendment (which covers only “citizens” who are permitted to gain membership in and enter American society by either birth on U.S. soil or by naturalization and being subject to the jurisdiction of the United States), nor Congressional Acts (8 U.S.C. Sec. 1401), nor any case law (e.g. U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)) has ever changed the original common law definition of a “natural born Citizen.” This amendment and laws have all dealt with the sole question of whether a particular person was going to be allowed to enter into and be a member of American society and thereby be declared a “citizen.” The 14th Amendment did not involve Article II, let alone define what a “natural born Citizen” is. Never having been changed, the original constitutional meaning of a “natural born Citizen” prevails today. We can also see from these definitions that a “citizen” could have more than one allegiance and loyalty (acquiring allegiance from one’s foreign parents or from foreign soil) but a “natural born Citizen” can have only one and that is to America (soil and parents are all united in one nation).

The original definition of “natural born Citizen” gives our Constitutional Republic the best chance of having a President and Commander in Chief of the Military who has sole and absolute allegiance, loyalty, and attachment to the United States. By satisfying all conditions of this definition, all other avenues of acquiring other foreign citizenships and allegiances (jus soli or by the soil and jus sanguinis or by descent) are cut off. Having all other means of acquiring other foreign citizenships or allegiances cut off is unity of citizenship which is what the President must have at the time of birth. Additionally, by requiring the child’s parents to be U.S. citizens best assures that those parents most likely will have absorbed American customs and values which, in turn, they will transmit to their child.

The “natural born Citizen” clause serves a critical purpose today and must be enforced in every Presidential election. The President has immense power, both civil and military. The clause assures the American people that their President does not have any conflicting allegiances or loyalties. In our nuclear world, it will avoid having a President who may hesitate to act quickly and decisively in a moment of crisis due to some internal psychological conflict of allegiance or loyalty. It will avoid any foreign nation expecting and pressuring the President to act in their best interest instead of that of America. The clause gives the American people the best chance that they will not be attacked from within through the Office of President. Knowing the President is a “natural born Citizen,” the American people will trust their President with their lives. Finally, such a President can expect that the military will give him or her full trust and obedience.

When President Obama was born in 1961, under the British Nationality Act 1948, both his father and he were British subjects/citizens. In 1963, they both became Kenyan citizens. In fact, Mr. Obama’s father was never even a legal resident or immigrant of America. Hence, regardless of where Mr. Obama was born or that he may be a United States citizen under the 14th Amendment, he is not an Article II “natural born Citizen” and not eligible to be President. This ineligibility has absolutely nothing to do with his race or class but all to do with his being born with multiple citizenships and allegiances and not satisfying the strict eligibility requirements of Article II. If someone believes that today the “natural born Citizen” clause no longer serves any useful purpose, then the proper way to change or abandon it is by way of constitutional amendment under Article V of the Constitution, not by usurpation.